4 ms·

> The list of "bad words" isn't listed for you is totally different to: > You're not always sure what you've said or done Listing the "bad words" ahead of ti

> The list of "bad words" isn't listed for you is totally different to: > You're not always sure what you've said or done Listing the "bad words" ahead of time (or even at all) is self-evidently not workable because people will just use different works to abuse/harass/bully people while evading the banned words list. That said, it's important to tell the person after the fact "you're banned because you harassed / bullied someone" or "you were caught using anti-cheat software." Maybe some date ranges so the person understands what they did and why they won't be reinstated. BUT you don't need to list out the _exact things_ they did because you're just opening up the toddler argument of "why is that so wrong?" which is just bad actors trying to waste your time and "legalese" their way back into the system.

shakna 4y ago
The lack of listing is fine, so long as the second half of the sentence, which you didn't quote, doesn't apply. If the system matches on substrings, then you need to know what to avoid - you can't even self-censor, if everything is ambiguous. You end up with the memes of getting banned from Club Penguin, otherwise. Except, Club Penguin does as you suggest - it tells you that you used a "rude or inappropriate word". Even if the regex is matching something that it shouldn't.
- scott_w 4y ago
  I do agree that insta-banning for _just_ using a rude word without warning is huge overkill. Giving fair warning (and telling them their account will be banned if they repeat offend) should be the baseline. The fact that it's not, in too many cases, is definitely something to criticise.
shkkmo 4y ago
> you're just opening up the toddler argument That's not the only thing you are doing. You are also creating an opportunity for false positives to justifiably challenge their bans. If you are going to keep the user's money, I think you absolutely have to provide recourse for false positives because otherwise what you are doing is simply theft.
simiones 4y ago
> Listing the "bad words" ahead of time (or even at all) is self-evidently not workable because people will just use different works to abuse/harass/bully people while evading the banned words list. Tough: you have to stay ahead of the bullies if you want to get money for an online service. It's not in any way acceptable to ban people without telling them specifically what you are accusing them of, so that they can challenge you if you are in fact wrong. The fact that it makes the job harder is not in any way an excuse. Now, if you were to return their money (or at least part of it based on how much time they actually played or something), then yes, you would have an argument that you have a right to unilaterally rescind the contract. But you can't keep the money and say "you know what you said".
- scott_w 4y ago
  > Now, if you were to return their money So they can just re-buy the game under a new account and just carry on as before? Try this: go to a football match, shout racist abuse at a player then demand a refund for your season ticket. I know for a fact you won't get it. > It's not in any way acceptable to ban people without telling them specifically what you are accusing them of > "you know what you said" Note that what I said wasn't "you know what you said" but "you violated these rules within these date ranges." For example: * "You were detected using a cheat tool on 13th-15th November" * "You harassed a player throughout March-August 2022" * "You were repeatedly abusive in private chat in September 2022" You're not being accused of murder in the Crown Court, you're being banned from interacting in a video game community. If you want access to the exact information, sue for it. --- Caveat --- Should you be banned from playing the game locally / single player? Absolutely not. This I would agree with you on.

shakna 4y ago

The lack of listing is fine, so long as the second half of the sentence, which you didn't quote, doesn't apply. If the system matches on substrings, then you need to know what to avoid - you can't even self-censor, if everything is ambiguous. You end up with the memes of getting banned from Club Penguin, otherwise. Except, Club Penguin does as you suggest - it tells you that you used a "rude or inappropriate word". Even if the regex is matching something that it shouldn't.

scott_w 4y ago
I do agree that insta-banning for _just_ using a rude word without warning is huge overkill. Giving fair warning (and telling them their account will be banned if they repeat offend) should be the baseline. The fact that it's not, in too many cases, is definitely something to criticise.

shkkmo 4y ago

> you're just opening up the toddler argument That's not the only thing you are doing. You are also creating an opportunity for false positives to justifiably challenge their bans. If you are going to keep the user's money, I think you absolutely have to provide recourse for false positives because otherwise what you are doing is simply theft.

simiones 4y ago

> Listing the "bad words" ahead of time (or even at all) is self-evidently not workable because people will just use different works to abuse/harass/bully people while evading the banned words list. Tough: you have to stay ahead of the bullies if you want to get money for an online service. It's not in any way acceptable to ban people without telling them specifically what you are accusing them of, so that they can challenge you if you are in fact wrong. The fact that it makes the job harder is not in any way an excuse. Now, if you were to return their money (or at least part of it based on how much time they actually played or something), then yes, you would have an argument that you have a right to unilaterally rescind the contract. But you can't keep the money and say "you know what you said".

scott_w 4y ago
> Now, if you were to return their money So they can just re-buy the game under a new account and just carry on as before? Try this: go to a football match, shout racist abuse at a player then demand a refund for your season ticket. I know for a fact you won't get it. > It's not in any way acceptable to ban people without telling them specifically what you are accusing them of > "you know what you said" Note that what I said wasn't "you know what you said" but "you violated these rules within these date ranges." For example: * "You were detected using a cheat tool on 13th-15th November" * "You harassed a player throughout March-August 2022" * "You were repeatedly abusive in private chat in September 2022" You're not being accused of murder in the Crown Court, you're being banned from interacting in a video game community. If you want access to the exact information, sue for it. --- Caveat --- Should you be banned from playing the game locally / single player? Absolutely not. This I would agree with you on.